Prior to the recent 3-1 home win against Liverpool, the Daily Mirror ran an article stating Neil Warnock’s job was in danger and the players weren’t playing for him. A comprehensive, character-filled win later and all seems somewhat rosier in the Warnock garden – and 10 games seems about the smallest sample of games for me to look at the contrasting attitudes to our last 2 managers. One of those managers, Pulis, many bemoan the loss of as much as they bemoan the appointment of the other. Given the way he left and the assumption from many, without evidence, that it “must have been because we wouldn’t spend money” it is understandable to lament the loss of a terrific manager who led us to the third best finish ever in our history – but how different are things under Warnock in reality?
I’m someone who likes to be positive and likes to try to be as rational as is possible about a football club which is my obsession. I am not a fan who wants a manager out after a handful of game, that’s for sure, but the defeats against Hull and Sunderland in particular had me worried.
To begin to look at this I think I have to begin with the first 10 (league) game record of each manager:
Tony Pulis: W4 D1 L5
Neil Warnock: W3 D3 L4
That shows us that Pulis, despite being on the end of more defeats, was a point ahead of Warnock in the same stage of his Palace career. On its own that is a statistic that surprised many – the perception after a poor 5 game run was that Pulis was significantly more successful. Memories which are still fresh of an 11th placed finish perhaps could be considered a touch misleading. I have to say, however, I too was surprised at the 10 game records. I was very aware on Warnock’s appointment he had enjoyed a very good start – leading to a Manager of the Month nomination, so really it shouldn’t have been a shock. This was the first evidence that I had personally been affected by the frustration and, in some areas, hysteria that had surrounded recent results.
It would seem logical to ask how the two sets of 10 games actually looked in terms of form next – after all, we need to see why the perception of the job each manager has done in the Premier League at Palace has seemed so far apart from the reality.
Tony Pulis:LWWLLWLDLW
Neil Warnock:DDWWLLDLLW
It’s only a small sample so what we gain from it is limited – but what I think is key is that within those 10 games Pulis took charge of saw no more than a run 3 games without a win. A win is massive in the Premier League – especially if you’re talking about a team fancied for relegation. For me this is a clear indication of an area where the reaction has been so polarised. All the doubts (and there were plenty under Pulis, especially early on) can be allayed when the three points come along – and 3 (well 2 really) bad games is not enough for the malaise to set in. 5 without a win, with a solitary point, certainly is. I would say it is cause for concern to have a bad run – but it completely obscured the fact Warnock’s second spell in charge began with an excellent run of form
Of course we’re still just dealing with the information in a very superficial way. The next logical step is to look at the state of the club when the managers joined.
For Tony Pulis, he walked in (eventually) at time where the team had suffered demoralising defeats and was looking lost. Keith Millen had begun a brilliant job in steadying the ship – stopping the leaking of goals and restoring belief that the team could compete. A huge influx of personnel had disrupted the camp and primarily the club needed a strong personality to restore the togetherness that had, the season before, seen the team achieve something unbelievable. So whilst Pulis joined a team on its knees, he also joined a club that was waiting for a leader. He had to wait for the January window to do the surgery on the squad that lifted Palace from basement battlers to mid-table comfort, but the core of the squad the gained promotion was there and was supplemented by some decent new acquisitions. The likes of Chamakh, Bannan, Gayle, Puncheon and Jerome all had a positive impact at different times. In his opening game, a defeat away at Norwich, Pulis had Speroni, Ward, Moxey, Gabbidon, Delaney, KG, Jedinak, Bannan, Puncheon, Chamakh and Jerome as his starting 11.
So that lineup was not too shabby, but it is fair to say Warnock walked into a stronger squad – one that already knew that it could compete, and get success, at the highest level. I think however, it is also worth saying that Warnock joined a team similarly struggling, but for different reasons. It was a team essentially abandoned by its leader just 2 days before the start of a season. There was a protracted search for a new manager, media controversy galore and all with just 48 hours to get players in to boost the squad before the transfer window shut. Sorry, “slammed shut.” The need for a leader was eerily similar to the Pulis appointment and the need to hit the ground running in a spell of games where points were perhaps more likely than later in the fixture list was massive. I think from the form stat above, we can see Warnock did exactly that.
At this point I think it’s worth saying that whilst I have painted a sympathetic picture of what Warnock faced when he walked in, I am not saying it was harder than Pulis’ position. Really the answer to that is going to subjective – for me I think it’s about even. You may feel one way or the other reading this – but it’s not poles apart and I think that is important when considering the two managers.
Missing from the form are the opponents, so here they are:
Pulis: Norwich (L), West Ham (W), Cardiff (W), Chelsea (L), Newcastle (L), Villa (W)Man C (L), Norwich (D), Spurs (L), Stoke (W)
Warnock: Newcastle (D), Burnley (D), Everton (W), Leicester (W), Hull (L), Chelsea (L), WBA (D), Sunderland (L), Man Utd (L), Liverpool (W)
In the interests of preventing this blog needing to be issued as a supplementary novel, I won’t dwell too much on those – but they make interesting reading to me. Pulis’ Palace lost to and drew with Norwich, who were relegated, both lost to Chelsea, both had abject displays against sides from the North East (Pulis vs Newcastle and Warnock vs Sunderland) and in all honesty I think the more impressive wins are by Warnock’s Palace.
My final point of examination is a good old fashioned case study. In a recent Holradio show we dealt with the loss against Manchester United and subsequent social media meltdown from a relatively large selection of the support. Indeed it was quite a negative show for us – but during it I made a point that is the motivation behind stepping away from the 10 v 10 game comparison. At the risk of ridicule I stated my belief that many were being hugely critical of a display that was better than the display we witnessed against the same opponent under Pulis.
Clearly there were differences in both sides – but just how different? Different enough to be calling for a manager’s head after 9 games? Different enough to think a narrow defeat at Old Trafford in a game we were perhaps unlucky not to win let alone get a point was something worth getting apoplectically angry about? Well let’s have a look.
The Man Utd Line-ups were:
Nov 2014 (Warnock)
- 01 de Gea
- 25 A Valencia Booked
- 33 McNair (Fletcher)
- 17 Blind
- 03 Shaw
- 16 Carrick
- 11 Januzaj (Mata )
- 31 Fellaini
- 10 Rooney
- 07 Di María (Wilson)
- 20 van Persie
Feb 2014 (Pulis)
- 01 de Gea
- 12 Smalling
- 05 Ferdinand
- 15 Vidic (Fletcher )
- 03 Evra
- 16 Carrick
- 44 Januzaj (Giggs)
- 31 Fellaini
- 10 Rooney
- 08 Mata
- 20 Van Persie (Valencia)
My first observation is that the Man Utd team is very similar. Arguably Di Maria is an upgrade on Mata. Shaw vs Evra even(ish), Blind at CB is probably a shade worse than Vidic at that time, McNair probably better than the declining Ferdinand was and an out of position Valencia probably not up to the level of Smalling. Not much in it in my view, but by all mean disagree.
Now Palace:
Nov 2014 (Warnock)
- 01 Speroni
- 03 Mariappa
- 06 Dann
- 27 Delaney
- 02 Ward
- 42 Puncheon
- 18 McArthur
- 28 Ledley
- 07 Bolasie Booked (Gayle)
- 29 Chamakh (Bannan)
- 10 Campbell (Doyle )
Feb 2014 (Pulis)
- 01 Speroni
- 02 Ward
- 06 Dann
- 27 Delaney
- 04 Parr
- 13 Puncheon
- 15 Jedinak
- 28 Ledley
- 11 Ince (Gayle)
- 29 Chamakh (Bolasie – 74′ )
- 17 Murray
Even closer in the Palace line-ups I would suggest. Pulis had Jedinak, whilst Warnock was without the suspended skipper. Mariappa was in for Warnock whilst Pulis had Parr in there (although he could have selected Mariappa at RB and Ward at LB of course) so perhaps an advantage there for NW. Certainly the in-form Bolasie is a better player than Tom Ince – but Bolasie probably was as effective as Ince in this one. Campbell and Murray I’m leaving well alone.
What I will say is that the way both managers set up and approached the game was very similar in both selection within the constraints they worked with and the opponent they faced. Having witnessed both games I felt we were a far bigger threat to Man Utd under Neil Warnock, yet the 1-0 defeat was met with angst and disdain. The 2-0 reverse Pulis’ side suffered was “just one of those things” – so what is different?
For me it is pretty simple. It’s perception. Tony Pulis was billed from the very start as our saviour. The media told us he had never been relegated almost as much as he did and the whole fanbase united around this surly Welshman who Steve Parish had to convince to make a u-turn and join us – and it worked out just like it was meant to. The saviour saved, we stayed up – and not only that, by the end we were mid table. It was an extension to the previous season’s fairytale.
Contrast that perception to that of the appointment of Neil Warnock. The media were at pains to point out, almost as much as he was, that he wasn’t first choice for the job. We’d been stung by the QPR/admin thing. His reputation is one of a manager who gets teams up and can’t keep them there. He’s on a short contract. He is often a divisive character who some people simply won’t ever like.
It couldn’t be any more different. So every failure, in terms of a result, is greeted like every Pulis success.
What I am trying to say I guess is that when you look at the reality – they aren’t that different. Their management of a similar team actually yields very similar results – what’s different is how it is perceived, or more accurately, how some people choose to perceive it.
If you want me to tell you who I think is the better manager – I’ll tell you clearly it’s Tony Pulis. I base that judgement on his relative success in the top divisions that Neil Warnock does not have. It’s easy for me to say that – but that does not mean Neil Warnock’s 30+ years as a football manager can be written off as irrelevant and are not deserving of respect. It does not mean, in spite of what you might have read in the papers or on messageboards or twitter or whatever, that he will take us down and is a dinosaur. He should be judged exactly the same as his predecessor, not by a predetermined agenda based on who he is and how he came to be our manager once more.
He is responsible for some of my favourite times being a Palace fan – in circumstances far more dire than anything Tony Pulis had to deal with – and I hope he will go on to be responsible for some more. I cannot think why any other Palace fan wouldn’t want that too.
